Prev: Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval Next: Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval

Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval

From: "Damond Walker" <damosan@g...>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:28:23 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval

Gzg-l mailing list
Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Pope <> wrote:

> But I'm also more likely to be on the side of "counting knots" so that
> wasn't a surprise really.

I, on the other hand, am happy if the feel is right.  That doesn't mean
looking for a scrubbed down set of rules that mash all the radars down
to a
single rating and all the sonars of the world into generic active and
passive ratings.  As you allude to later on Harpoon is fun but crunchy
Shipwreck appears to be at the low end of that scale.  I'll probably end
ordering the set eventually.  I went to Historicon last weekend and
see a copy otherwise I'd probably already own them.

Yep.  ...and WHEN you see them makes a big difference in how many of
> defenses are pointing in the right direction and have the range to

Assuming detection at extreme range you probably have a minute+ to react
an incoming cruise missile (assuming you use Harpoon's "Knots / 60"). 
missiles are faster of course and the "detection at extreme range"
assumption is a big one.  Harpoon makes the captain roll to detect
and missiles so it's possible that you'll detect enemy boats but not see
hot sea skimmers coming in for the kill.

> Defenses are always there, and it's unlikely that a pair of Osas are
> to do much damage to a CVBG.	But detection is still a big issue,
because if
> they don't know where you are, you get to do X damage to them (even if
> depleting defensive missiles) for free.

And that's perfectly ok for longer engagements ... say a "campaign" game
where your ships are screening ships to/from Europe.  :)

> This is very much unlike WWI or WWII surface combat, where detection
> nice but you had to hammer them to scrap and that free shot was only a
> ahead of the curve.  As opposed to the opportunity to completely
destroy an
> equal force with no damage at all.

True.  But then we have to talk about possibility vs. probability in the
modern context.

> True.  Though I'd argue that, at least in surface combat on the open
> that statement is largely true for warships.	Guns are useful for the
> that managedto survive the initial missile barrage and emptied their
> launchers, but the ranges are so skewed that they won't affect combat
> resolution much until that point.

Guns exist to scare drug runners and to shoot down missiles.  Though it
would be funny for a modern naval game to devolve to a long range gun
with 5" guns -- probably not very fun or realistic.  I think two
fleets (well...task forces, SAGs, etc.) will do some real damage to each
other but the guns won't come into play after the smoke clears.

> It's a tricky problem, and the interlocking layers of area and close
> point defense are also hard to model in FT.

You think?  It would appear, at least on the surface, to be pretty easy
come to a close approximation.	An Arleigh Burke can throw massive
of SM2s (per Harpoon) -- Area defense would appear to be quite easy with
such a ship.  Your standard PDFs and low-powered "beams" can fill the
of close and point defense.

> Ok, I should clarify. Any kind of _hidden movement_ is difficult. The
> detection mechanics aren't the problem as much as always knowing where
> other guys ships are, even if you shouldn't.

That's a given with any game once you start the double-triple-quadruple
blind situations and not a problem unique to naval games.  I do agree
you though.  I've talked a number of folks at the local store to do a
double-blind game where half (3) of the players run Alfas while the
half run FFs and DDs screening a convoy.  It will have more of a
aspect to it than a hard and fast numbers game.

> I have some problems with Shipwreck but on the whole I've enjoyed it.

I've heard the same from a few folks.  I'm really going to have to get

> ...and I keep looking for others and reading everything I can.
Are you strictly a blue water type gamer?  Have you done any littoral
stuff?	Part of me says it's "modern naval" with smaller boats and
diesel subs.


Prev: Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval Next: Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval